My parents were urging me to write my rep over this, but I think this is misguided at best

These two provisions were addressing a real issue with how SS benefits are calculated - typically your monthly benefit is a percentage of your average monthly earnings eligible for SS. Higher AIMEs are indexed down more than lower ones on a principle of need (those with lower lifetime earnings are likely to need more of a benefit to live through retirement). These provisions basically addressed fringe cases where low AIME’s weren’t necessarily a result of low earnings but of switching out of SS eligible income into a pension system

As I understand it, these simply indexed the monthly benefit down based on (largely outdated) assumptions about those earners. As others have pointed out - SS already has a solvency problem (it’s been undermined for decades now), and further stressing that fund without expanding the tax base is just going to further stress it at a time when the GOP is itching to cut it across the board.

No question that our retirement system needs to be expanded, but this particular change seems reckless. I have to wonder why they chose to do this now

I’m not sure who you’re suggesting are ‘my boys’

I’m not suggesting they would or would want to take all of Ukraine, just that Ukraine isn’t likely to gain any ground or stop further Russian advance without outside aid.

I don’t really think I am, but fair enough.

Ukraine might have more advanced infrastructure than Afghanistan, but having that infrastructure within reach of Russian missiles and airstrikes means that they’d have to defend it or else lose the means to sustain a continued resistance. Again, I don’t think people appreciate just how much trouble Ukraine would be in if the west pulled support before a ceasefire deal is struck - Ukrainian forces aren’t guerilla fighters. If Russia didn’t already have the upper hand now, they certainly would once Ukraine was left to maintain their resistance alone - and then it would really only be a question of how long Russian citizens will put up with their wartime economy (and how many soldiers NK is willing to lose).

The one we’re talking about.

The taliban had the support of Pakistan, as well as Iran and Russia - that’s the only way that kind of war could last for 20 years. That’s essentially where we are now with western backing, but if the west pulls support… Ukraine can last only so long on will-power alone. The same could be said for Russia, but as far as I can tell there isn’t an active risk of their allies pulling support yet.

edit: far be it for me to point out that’s why there’s been so much circling of wagons to keep the US involved and so much panic about trump pulling us out

Huh? This conflict basically already is the Afghanistan war.

Yea I don’t disagree. It’s just an incredible claim and it’s surprising that it’s apparently not being scrutinized much in the reporting.

People really want to take this as granted, and that’s kinda the point of manufactured consent.

I don’t even have a horse in this race, but it’s kinda crazy how badly people seem to want to believe this one crazy detail of an already unbelievable conflict

• a: they’re paraphrasing zelenski there, and,

• b:

The BBC has not independently verified the claims.

They’re all reporting on the same tweet, it’s not surprising that none of them have been able to verify it

Is she really your standard bearer for ‘left’…?

stop the fascist invasion of Ukraine.

Lol, did he, though? And by the same metric did he also ‘stop’ the fascist invasion of Palestine?

and would let both Ukraine and Palestine be genocide by dictators.

Weird how those are still happening then.

The call is coming from inside the house, bud.

Just curious - does compromising/working with fascists make you a fascist stooge even when you’re a liberal democrat?

Just want to make sure we’re not operating on any double standards

When your left-wing coalition depends on kowtowing to capital to survive, it isn’t left-wing anymore.

Pretending as if it’s a binary choice is the reason why liberals end up compromising with nazis in the first place.

“Be kind to people, be ruthless to systems.”

That’s the thing about paint - sometimes it peels off of whatever shitty surface it’s covering.

Either way, honestly - it’s a thin, flaky coat of paint on a reactionary bourgeois political party

Better to vote for the pink-painted wing of the GOP

Except she spent the last election cycle mocking third parties and saying you need to ‘build coalitions’ by working within the party

If this is what she got for her support of Israel and ‘working within the party’, then I think she might have been taken for a ride

I’ll admit - if there was any way to convince me to get a truck that big, this might be it